Thursday, October 1, 2009

The New York Times on Bull's Eye

Again I have to thank George for the tip. In an op-ed piece published in the New York Times we have their take on the incredible Bull's Eye Shooter Supply of Tacoma.

For three weeks in 2002, the nation’s capital was terrorized as a sniper and his young accomplice killed 10 people at random and wounded three others. The two murderers were caught and convicted. When their rifle — a Bushmaster XM-15 — was tracked back to a Tacoma, Wash., arms dealer, Brian Borgelt blithely told investigators that, yes, the $1,600 rifle was one of 238 weapons that seemed to have been stolen or missing from his inventory.

There's nothing new there. We all know the story. What I keep askingis how can lawful gun owners support and defend people like this Borgelt?

What is new in the Times article is a bit of background on Mr. Borgelt.

For years before the sniper attacks, Mr. Borgelt was repeatedly cited for failing to track sales and inventory or to properly file background checks on purchasers. Despite warnings, he easily stayed in business at the Bull’s Eye Shooter Supply.

The grisly shootings finally compelled the government to revoke his license. Mr. Borgelt then sold the business to a friend (other defunct dealers like to sell the shops to their wives). Bull’s Eye is still open, and Mr. Borgelt continues to run a shooting range upstairs.

Does anyone else find that reprehensible? In my opinion this guy should be behind bars. He's a major criminal and anyone who supports the tricky business that took place between him and the new owner should seriously question what side of the law they're on. We're not talking about cheating on your taxes a little bit or selling one gun to your brother-in-law who has a record. We're talking about a major departure from what should be acceptable behaviour from good citizens.

What's your opinion? Is Borgelt getting harsh treatment just like Iknadosian? Do you think they're victims of the liberal press and the gun control crowe?

Since the Heller decision, the gun lobby and criminals have brought at least 170 challenges to gun laws or to block criminal gun prosecutions. With only a handful of exceptions, those challenges have failed.”

What's your opinion? Is it any wonder that I keep trying to spread the responsibility around? When guys like Iknadosian and Borgelt are either exonerated completely or given nothing more than a slap on the wrist and the pro-gun voices are either silent or supportive, I say you're all to blame.

"When guys like Iknadosian and Borgelt are either exonerated completely or given nothing more than a slap on the wrist and the pro-gun voices are either silent or supportive, I say you're all to blame."

Blame the Judges?Blame the juries?Blame the prosecuters?Blame the FBI for approving the sales?

Maybe Italy has a different idea of justice than is supposed to be applied here, and maybe you've forgotten some important aspects of how it's supposed to work here, so let me explain:

People aren't supposed to be put behind bars because of someone's "opinion." If a court had found him guilty of a felony, behind bars he would have gone.

So, yeah--I do support him. I'm proud to support the continued freedom of a man who has not been convicted of any crimes.

The fact that someone like you, Mikeb, jumps up on his moral high horse and condemns me for that makes me even prouder.

He's a major criminal [says you--not the courts] and anyone who supports the tricky business that took place between him and the new owner . . .

I believe I've asked you this before, without a response: what "tricky business"? What about the sale to his friend is so nefarious? Do you think the law should require that a gun shop owner whose license is revoked can only sell the shop to a stranger or personal enemy? The new owner isn't even suspected (to my knowledge) of having engaged in any wrongdoing--what, again, is the problem?

Well one problem is that you pretend not to understand what I'm talking about. What Iknadosian did was get off on a technicality, just like any other criminal who gets busted but the cops can't make the case. They know he did it, but charges must be dropped. If that's a black kid in the ghetto, I don't think you'd be so supportive. But because this criminal is a gun dealer, you pull all that America-is-great crap. It's the land of the free, man.

The other guy is worse. If a guy loses his license to conduct an activity, but continues doing it by simply transferring the business to his wife or friend, to me that's making a mockery of the law. I thought you were big on the law? I thought you liked all that innocent until proven guilty stuff? Well the law that revokes a person's license for doing a certain business intends that he cease from doing it because he can't be trusted. To circumvent that is wrong - WRONG.

If that's a black kid in the ghetto, I don't think you'd be so supportive.

Oh, so I'm a racist now?

Look here, punk--my middle name is Martin, for Dr . Martin Luther King, Jr. I hate bigots even more than you hate freedom from forcible citizen disarmament tyranny, and those of us who fight to protect that freedom. You think I wouldn't be supportive of someone--regardless of race or socioeconomic status--who benefitted from our justice system's due process? Guess what--you're wrong--again (or is that wrong still--I'm not sure it's not just an uninterrupted, unbroken, endless stream of wrongness from you).

When you have some evidence that Borgelt and the owner of Bull's Eye are committing crimes, bring it on. Until then, heed my favorite two words: "shoveitupyour," and "ass."

Hell, MikeB would send Iknadosian to jail EVEN THOUGH the case against him was THROWN OUT DUE TO LACK OF EVIDENCE OF A CRIME.

Despicable.

It's good, though, that the enemy leaves no room for doubt about where he stands--how deeply contemptuous of liberty and justice he is. And in that, Mikeb is a typical advocate of forcible citizen disarmament. Our job, as liberty advocates, is to expose how morally bankrupt the other side is.

How is it that we gun owners present factual information, verified data, supported statistics and you bring to the table -- insults if we are the brainless ones?

Isn't it revealing that we present things that support our position and you call names?

What evidence is that that Iknadosian was guilty of anything?

Yet in dismissing the 21 counts against Mr. Iknadosian, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Robert Gottsfield ruled that the evidence prosecutors presented wasn't "material," and therefore didn't support charges against the defendant.

"The state's case is based upon testimony of individuals who [alleged]...that they were the actual purchaser of the firearms when they were not," Judge Gottsfield wrote. He then indicated that such testimony, by itself, failed to establish that any additional unlawful conduct transpired.

"There is no proof whatsoever that any prohibited possessor ended up with the firearm," the judge said.

To be considered "material," he explained, testimony about falsifying government forms must further demonstrate that the act "resulted in an unlawful person ending up with the guns, which has not been proven."

The Judge dismissed the case because the EVIDENCE presented after an 11 month investigate didn't even warrant bringing it to trial. NOTHING the government presented showed that Iknadosian did anything wrong.

So, what information do you and MikeB have that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOESN'T?

Once again MikeB, your post is light on facts (and I'm being generous) and heavy on innuendo. When that doesn't work, your friend Muck starts with the name calling.

Just think. By next June, the second ammendment will likely be an incorporated right. Could even be subject to "strict scrutiny". Most gun laws will get repealed for fear of lawsuits. Big $$$ in cases that trample on civil rights!

I suggest MikeB and Muck start crying. THAT will get attention. C'mon guys...squirt a few for us

Borgelt was convicted for failing to file tax returns. He should have done time for that.

I don't know why the feds didn't put him away for the tax thing, but what's the relevance? Do you think Mikeb would have any less of a hard-on to put him (and the new owner, who has never been implicated in any crimes) away, if there had been no indication that he had cheated the gangster government out of some its legal extortion income?

Good for Borgelt and the new owner. I wish I lived in the area, so I could support them with my business.

My suggesting that these guys should be behind bars is not to say they should be behind bars without a trial or because I have a feeling about it, none of that nonsense. I say they should be behind bars because to me they're criminals. If it can't be proven or if people cover for them or if there just happens to be no evidence, that's a damn shame.

Actually, I'm not the one who condones vigilante justice. Don't forget all of our discussion about excessive response to criminals, break-in artists and car thieves.

Apology accepted--but I won't apologize for a pretty angry reaction. That implication of racism is the kind of thing I've come to expect from muddy, but I think you generally try to hold yourself to a higher standard of decency.

Did it occur to any of you guys that Mud_Rake was attempting to mimic the sounds of proverbial hillbilly talk in his comment?

Yeah, Mikeb--sure. "'Umbelical' cord" sounds just like something Uncle Jed would say. If I ever expose idiocy on my part, Mikeb, do me a favor, and don't do me any favors. If that kind of spin is the best cover you can provide, I'd rather do without.

As far as his blog goes, been there, and that's 10 minutes of my life I'll never get back.

An intellectual and moral wasteland.

About your commenting policy, Mikeb--is it as some have opined--that personal attacks are OK as long as they're directed at gun rights advocates by your little intellectually challenged pals, or is it simply that personal attacks are only acceptable if they're delivered in infantile fashion?

I have viewed the 2nd Amendment the same as Sotomayer for much longer than she has been alive.

Ol' muddy sure was proud of himself for having espoused all along what he thought Sotomayor's position was, only for it to turn out to have been a joke! In other words, muddy's position was a joke, and in still other words, muddy himself is a joke--and a damned hilarious one, at that.

Schadenfreude is not very admirable, I know, and it's even worse to laugh at someone suffering from Alzheimer's, but muddy is the kind of guy who just makes it impossible not to enjoy his mental fecklessness.

By the way, Mikeb, part of this comment pissed me off enough (I won't go into which part, since you seem to get sensitive about that, and I'm in a polite mood at the moment) that I never got around to addressing this part:

The other guy is worse. If a guy loses his license to conduct an activity, but continues doing it by simply transferring the business to his wife or friend, to me that's making a mockery of the law. I thought you were big on the law? I thought you liked all that innocent until proven guilty stuff? [I am, and I don't see how I'm being inconsistent about that] Well the law that revokes a person's license for doing a certain business intends that he cease from doing it because he can't be trusted. To circumvent that is wrong - WRONG.

Here's the thing, Mikeb--I thought you were one who opposed justice as "revenge." I thought deterring repeat offenses was your idea of the role of the justice system (I think I could find examples of you stating that, if necessary, but hopefully you'll agree that I've adequately paraphrased your position on that--because I really don't feel like going to the trouble).

That's why I ask "what's the problem?" with the current arrangement at Bull's Eye. Borgelt's supposed "crime" (and selling guns--even doing so illegally--is a victimless "crime," since no one is hurt unless the real criminal hurts someone; but I digress) was dealing guns illegally. Well, guess what--without a Federal Firearms License, he can't legally sell guns--just as the law intended.

You're upset because his friend can sell guns? Because his friend can do so from the same building? The article acknowledges that the friend seems to be following all the rules--what else do you want?

Is it Borgelt's ownership of a shooting range that's the problem, even though the range doesn't sell guns?

And, in fact, authorities think Malvo shoplifted the rifle — in a police interview, Malvo referred to it as a "donation."

"Its security was so abysmal that it appears that a 17-year-old, Malvo, was able to stroll into the store and stroll out holding a 3-foot-long assault rifle," Lowy said. "And Bull's Eye didn't even know the gun was missing until the police called several weeks later to tell them it was found in the trunk of the snipers' car."

Criticize the security if you want, but there's no law that lays responsibility on a gun store for being robbed--and nor should there be, because such a law would penalize the victim of a crime. Kinda like blaming an HIV-positive woman who is raped for spreading AIDS.

beowulf, I can't believe you go to such great lengths to defend these guys and what you originally said about them

Let me first say, I'm not "offended" by anything. I'm just pointing out things that I think are wrong.

And it has nothing to do with blaming the HIV victim. That's a ridiculous comparison. A lot of what I said is based on the fact that I don't buy the "lost" or "shoplifted" ideas. Do you, really?

Let me ask you like this. If you owned a gun store, can you picture that happening? Could you possibly allow that to happen under your watch, hundreds of guns? How great would your sales volume have to be before such a thing became even remotely possible?

beowulf, I can't believe you go to such great lengths to defend these guys and what you originally said about them

"Great lengths"? I typed a few paragraphs--it ain't exactly building a pyramid over a pharaoh's tomb, by hauling rocks on my back. But the reason it's worth it to me to go to some effort is that the accused (Borgelt) is out of the gun selling business (which is, I thought, what you wanted), and the new shop owner isn't accused of doing anything wrong. So I ask again: what the hell is the problem?

A lot of what I said is based on the fact that I don't buy the "lost" or "shoplifted" ideas. Do you, really?

I showed you that the government believes it. Sure--distrust of the government is something of a hallmark of mine, but I don't see their incentive for making that up--do you? As for the HIV analogy--blaming the victim is blaming the victim--seems a fair comparison to me.

Let me ask you like this. If you owned a gun store, can you picture that happening? Could you possibly allow that to happen under your watch, hundreds of guns? How great would your sales volume have to be before such a thing became even remotely possible?

I'm not claiming to admire the guy's smarts, or his business model--I just don't see that as the issue, since there is no law requiring a business owner to be smart, nor should there be.